Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WILLIAM NELSON, Appellant, v. JASON MILLER INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a JAYMAR TRAVEL PARK and XYZ CO. 1-3,1 Appellees. No. 2D20-3152 July 2, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Patricia A. Muscarella, Judge. Bethany L. Schneider of Schneider Injury Law, Atlanta, Georgia; and James A. Robson of Glass & Robson, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. 1 In his complaint, Nelson indicated that "XYZ Co. 1-3 are fictitious entities that may have shared responsibility" with Jaymar Travel Park for the control and maintenance of the subject premises and that if "any such entity/entities exist, [Nelson] will substitute the legal name of said entity/entities" later. Accordingly, there is no indication that "XYZ Co. 1-3" in this action refers to anything more than a "placeholder" for an entity or entities that may or may not exist; Nelson has not served "XYZ Co. 1-3" with the underlying complaint, and "XYZ Co. 1-3" has made no appearance in this appeal. Dyana L. Sisti and Katherine V. Shadwick of Reynolds Parrino Spano & Shadwick P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. The trial court granted Jason Miller Investments, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for improper venue without conducting an evidentiary hearing and notwithstanding William Nelson's request to conduct discovery on the issue. Although the complaint in this case does not show on its face that venue is proper in Pinellas County, as is alleged, it likewise does not show on its face that venue is improper there. Accordingly, we reverse. See Interactive Retail Mgmt., Inc. v. Microsoft Online, L.P., 988 So. 2d 717, 720–21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("A motion by the defendant to dismiss or transfer on the ground of improper venue raises issues of fact which must be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, unless the complaint shows on its face that venue is improper." (citing Kinetiks.Com, Inc. v. Sweeney, 789 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))); see also Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1955) ("It is of the very nature of venue that the plaintiff selects it initially, but need not plead or prove that his selection has been proper, and the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper, if such 2 is the fact, is upon the defendant."). On remand, the trial court shall permit discovery only on the venue issue until that issue is decided after the evidentiary hearing. See Mkt. Traders Inst., Inc. v. Kent, 300 So. 3d 377, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Reversed; remanded with instructions. LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 3